UMASS/AMHERST 


■»' ' i-'Lc 


LIBRARY 


OF  THE 


MASSACHUSETTS 

AGRICULTURAL 

COLLEGE 


No.nsj. 

SourcejO-U 


HF 

1756 

F3 


i^-12. 


:^- 


This  book  may  be  kept  out 

TWO      WEEKS 

only,  and    is    subject    to     a     fine     of     TWO 
CENT'"' 

the  i 


tL3  :: 
FEB  17 


U\«U^-    0 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arcinive 

in  2010  witii  funding  from 

Boston  Library  Consortium  IVIember  Libraries 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/valueofprotectiv1922bost 


VALUE 


PROTECTIVE  TARIFF 


THE  FARMER. 


JOS.    STORY    FAY. 


^^SkCmSET 


GRICuLTURAL 


j\  /'•<  n  7 


'OUr^^* 


EXTRACT   FROM   THE    THIRTIETH   ANNUAL    REPORT    OF    THE 
SECRETARY    OF    THE    BOARD    OF    AGRICULTURE. 


BOSTON : 

WRIGHT   &   POTTER   PRINTING   CO.,  STATE    PRINTERS, 

18  Post  Office   Square. 

1883. 


THE  VALUE  OP  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF 
TO  THE  FARMER. 


Oentlemen  of  the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  of  Massachusetts  : 

As  delegate  from  the  Barnstable  Agricultural  Society  I 
thank  you  for  the  honor  you  have  done  me  in  appointing  me 
to  address  you  on  the  value  of  a  protective  tariff  to  the 
farmer.  I  approach  the  subject  with  some  diffidence  as  to 
my  own  power  of  treating  the  subject  to  the  best  advantage, 
but  with  not  the  least  doubt  as  to  the  soundness  of  the  nega- 
five  position  I  shall  take,  and  I  ask  your  indulgent  atten- 
tion. I  do  not  propose  to  detain  you  with  an  elaborate 
essay.  I  shall  only  submit  to  you  a  few  facts  and  consider- 
ations that  the  busiest  may  have  time  to  think  about,  and 
those  the  least  familiar  with  the  subject  can  understand. 
We  know  that  all  articles  raised  by  the  farmer,  or  coming 
from  the  soil,  have  a  ready  sale  for  cash,  and  that  the  pro- 
ducer can  at  once  realize  the  results  of  his  labor.  There 
are  manifold  uncertainties  in  his  business,  but  after  all  the 
vicissitudes,  beyond  those  of  any  other  worker  in  any 
branch  of  business  in  these  United  States,  such  as  the  changes 
of  weather,  wet  or  dry,  cold  or  hot,  wind  or  storm,  and 
worm  or  blight,  the  tiller  of  the  soil  knows  that  what  he 
secures  will  bring  him  its  value  in  money.  His  profits, 
however,  even  in  the  best  of  seasons,  and  with  the  largest 
of  crops,  are  not  so  great,  that  it  is  not  desirable  that  what 
he  receives  may  avail  him  to  the  utmost.  The  eifect  of  taxa- 
tion upon  him,  therefore,  is  important :  first,  as  it  may  affect 
the  cost  of  what  he  has  raised  ;  and,  second  in  making  the  pro- 
ceeds go  as  far  as  possible  in  supplying  his  wants  or  in' adding 
to  his  small  savings  and  capital.  As  things  are  at  present, 
the  fact  is,  that  though  he  sells  for  cash,  he  has  to  rebate 
to  somebody,  at  least  thirty,  if  not  forty  or  fifty  per  cent, 
of  what  he  receives.     I  will  now  proceed  to  give  you  a  few 


4  TALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

figures  from  a  pamphlet  issued  by  the  national  bureau  of 
statistics.  From  this  it  appears,  that  the  value  of  imports 
of  foreign  goods  last  year,  at  their  cost  abroad,  amounted  to 
716,000,000  dollars,  of  which  the  value  of  211,000,000 
was  of  free  goods ;  such  as  tea,  coffee,  hides,  chemicals, 
etc.,  leaving  a  value  of  505,000,000  on  which  duties  were 
paid  to  the  amount  of  21(3,000,000  dollars,  an  average  of 
42|  per  cent.  Think  of  adding  this  amount  to  the  foreign 
cost,  besides  freight  and  other  charges  ! 

The  exports  of  merchandise  during  this  period  were  valued 
at  733,000,000  dollars,  of  which  the  value  of  552,000,000 
were  the  products  of  agriculture,  or  seventy-five  per  cent,  of 
the  whole. 

Of  the  whole  amount  of  exports,  only  a  little  over  one- 
eighth,  or  103,000,000  worth  were  manufactures,  or  less  than 
two  per  cent,  of  the  total  manufacturing  product  of  the  country 
for  1880.  And  to  make  up  this  sum,  manufactures  of  wood 
(meaning  lumber)  to  the  value  of  19,000,000,  of  tobacco, 
spirits,  spirits  of  turpentine,  sugar  and  molasses,  and  many 
such  articles  have  to  be  included.  Now  if  the  duties  on  the 
total  716,000,000  of  imports,  free  and  dutiable,  are  216,- 
000,000,  or  an  average  of  thirty  per  cent,  on  all,  dutiable  or 
free,  does  not  the  country  have  to  pay  those  216,000,000 
into  the  public  treasury,  in  addition  to  the  733,000,000 
value  of  merchandise  sent  away  to  buy  them,  and  does  not 
this  vast  sum  come  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  consumers,  by 
the  increased  price  of  everything  they  have  to  buy?  And 
does  not  the  chief  burden  fall  upon  agriculture,  the  most  im- 
portant interest  of  the  nation,  and  upon  agriculturists,  who 
are  the  largest  class,  whose  products  and  labor  have  fur- 
nished the  bulk  of  those  exports? 

In  the  old  days  of  nullification,  when  there  was  much 
strife  and  much  intelligent  discussion  upon  the  elFect  of  for- 
eign imposts,  when  laid  for  protection,  Mr.  McDuffie  of 
South  Carolina  maintained  the  theory,  the  duties  at  that  time 
being  on  the  average  forty  per  cent,  upon  goods  imported 
from  England,  that  if  he  sent  100  bales  of  cotton  there  to  be 
sold,  ordering  the  returns  in  goods,  when  they  arrived,  he 
had  to  give  the  United  States  government  40  bales  more  to 
pay  the    duty  on   the  clothing,  hats,  shoes   and  blankets  in 


VALUE  OF  A  PKOTECTIVE  TARIFF.  5 

which  he  had  ordered  the  proceeds  of  the  100  bales  to  be 
invested,  thus  making  the  100  bales  worth  of  goods  cost  him 
140  bales  of  cotton .  And  this  was  no  fallacy.  It  was  true 
then,  and  it  is  true  to-day.  If  I  send  100  barrels  of  cran- 
berries from  my  Cape  Cod  place,  or  you  100  barrels  of  apples 
from  your  inland  farm  to  England,  and  bring  l:)ack  dutiable 
goods  in  exchange,  w^e  must  have  the  proceeds  of  43  barrels 
more  in  our  pockets  to  pay  the  government  for  the  duties  on 
the  goods.  Even  if  we  ordered  the  amount  in  trees,  or 
plants,  or  seeds  of  any  kind,  paying  a  duty  of  twenty  per 
cent.,  it  would  be  20  barrels  on  a  hundred,  and  does  this  pro- 
tect us?  The  total  amount  of  value  of  seeds  imported  last 
year  was  $1,465,170.18,  paying  duties  $281,038.84.  There 
is  not  only  no  protection  to  us  in  this,  but  actually  a  barrier 
in  the  way  of  introducing  improved  seeds  and  plants  into 
the  country,  only  to  increase  the  surplus  in  the  public  treas- 
ury at  our  expense,  to  be  squandered  at  Washington.  If  it 
be  said  that  you  and  I  will  bring  home  gold  for  our  apples 
or  cranberries,  we  cannot  buy  at  home  what  we  need  with- 
out its  cost  being  increased  by  the  duties  the  importer  has 
to  pay  on  it,  be  it  silk  or  merino  dresses  for  our  wives  and 
daughters,  coats  and  hats  for  ourselves,  or  steel  ploughs  or 
trace  and  log  chains  for  our  farms.  You  cannot  escape  the 
.fact  that  you  buy  a  great  deal  less  for  your  money  at  home 
than  abroad,  and  while  the  price  of  what  you  raise  aikl  sell  is 
fixed  by  what  it  is  worth  in  the  foreign  market,  the  price  of 
all  you  want  to  buy  here  of  foreign  make,  is  fixed  here,  and 
the  cost  is  increased  l)y  the  duty,  averaging  nearly  forty-three 
per  cent.  That  a  tax  increases  the  price  of  goods  is  illustrated 
by  the  fact  that  common  whiskey,  worth  25  cents  a  gallon,  is 
increased  by  the  dut}^  of  90  cents  to  the  market  value  of 
$1.15,  and  the  same  is  the  efiect  on  the  price  of  tobacco. 
This  increase  of  price  by  the  tax,  which  is  here  clear  and 
palpable,  will  apply,  though  less  apparently,  to  all  the  lirti- 
cles  imported  from  abroad,  be  they  sugar  (three  cents  a 
pound),  or  salt,  clothing,  hats  or  blankets,  iron  or  steel,  or 
manufactures  thereof.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  prices  of 
the  same  class  of  goods  made  at  home  are  enhanced  in 
equal  ratio  to  the  foreign  goods  which  compete  w^ith  them. 
If  any  man  tells  you  that  our  protected  manufacturer  makes 


6  VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

goods  cheaper  than  they  are  made  abroad,  ask  him  then, 
why  he  does  not  sell  them  at  a  price  at  which  they  can  be 
shipped  to  South  America,  India  or  China,  to  compete  with 
those  same  foreign  goods  sent  to  those  markets  from  Eng- 
land, Germany  and  France?  Why  must  our  exports  be 
mainly  agricultural,  if  our  manufacturers  can  afford  goods 
cheaper  than  the  foreigner?  In  addition  to  the  216,000,- 
000  of  dollars  duties  collected  on  foreign  imports,  there  are 
155,000,000  of  internal  revenue  taxes  collected,  of  which 
whiskey  and  tobacco,  the  products  of  agriculture,  pay  a 
large  part.  Of  course  these  are  luxuries,  and  we  are  not 
obliged  to  use  them,  but  it  makes  in  all  a  total  burden  of 
366,000,000  dollars  to  fall  upon  somebody,  and  it  cannot 
be  a  good  thing.  The  principle  is  wrong  to  gather  up  this 
vast  sum,  to  distribute  it  again,  who  knows  where?  It  may 
be  said  that,  if  these  350  to  400,000,000  dollars  a  year 
(the  latter  is  Mr.  Folger's  estimate  for  the  current  year) 
are  gathered  in  taxes,  the  amount  is  all  spent  at  home,  and 
that  the  country  is  not  the  poorer  for  it. 

Suppose  this  is  admitted,  does  it  not  make  considerable 
odds  to  whom  the  money  goes,  for  it  does  not  get  back  to 
those  who  contribute  it?  It  goes  from  your  pockets,  first, 
to  a  standing  army  of  tax  gatherers,  and  what  is  left,  to 
those  whose  coffers  are  already  full.  Do  you  know  a  farmer 
who  has  become  a  millionaire  by  farming?  You  may  count 
them  by  dozens  among  those  whose  occupations  and  business 
are  protected,  but  not  among  the  farmers  !  The  president 
of  the  Singer  Sewing  Machine  Company  lately  died,  leaving 
a  dozen  or  more  millions  of  dollars  made  from  a  business 
eminently  protected,  and  from  machines  mainly  distributed 
and  sold  among  the  working-people  of  this  country. 
From  the  increased  cost  by  duties  on  steel,  and  other  causes 
involved  in  protection,  these  machines  are  too  dear  for  prof- 
itable export;  but  how  is  this  met?  These  capitalists  build 
an  immense  factory  in  Glasgow,  where,  untrammelled  by 
tariff,  and  by  using  foreign  labor,  they  can  supply  machines 
to  foreign  work-people  at  one-half  or  two-thirds  of  the  cost 
of  the  protected  machines  which  you  have  to  buy.  But  for 
the  duty,  you  could  import  a  Singer,  or  other  sewing  machine, 
at  two-thirds   of  the  price   exacted  from  yoii  here,  or  les§, 


VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF.  7 

As  the  thing  stands  now,  with  all  the  large  sewing-machine 
factories  in  the  country,  making  millions  of  machines  yearly, 
you  furnished  for  export  in  1881,  a  greater  value  of  fresh 
and  dried  apples  than  was  the  amount  of  value  of  those  ma- 
chines sent  abroad  in  that  year.  The  same  facts  apply  to 
watches,  an  article  of  so  large  demand  and  use,  and  in  the 
manufacture  of  which  the  Americans  claim  the  pre-eminence. 
It  is  fifty  years  since  the  duties  on  imports  were  laid  in  a 
way  to  foster  and  protect  "  our  infant  manufactures."  To- 
day the  duties  are  heavier,  when  we  boast  of  American  skill 
and  the  perfection  of  American  machinery,  than  they  were  at 
the  start,  and  now  when  its  products  amount  to  $5,369,579,- 
191  per  annum. 

Twenty-two  years  ago,  a  sweeping  tariff  and  an  excise 
law  were  enacted  as  a  war  measure  to  sustain  the  credit  of 
the  country,  and  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  contest  for  the 
Union,  taxing  almost  everything  to  the  utmost,  and  thus 
neutralizing,  in  many  cases,  the  effect  of  the  very  protection 
desired,  but  putting  an  immense  burden  upon  all.  With  all 
its  crudities  and  inconsistencies  and  faults  that  tariff  has  never 
been  materially  changed.  Indeed,  some  classes  of  manufac- 
turers are  clamoring  for  an  increase,  while  some  have  actually 
obtained  it,  that  these  "  infant"  productions  may  make  more 
millionaires.  As  for  example  :  the  only  manufacturer  of  large 
plate  glass  such  as  we  see  in  shop  windows,  demands  a  pro- 
tection of  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  per  cent.,  and  he 
lives  in  Indiana,  beyond  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  This  duty 
prohibits  those  who  use  it  from  getting  supplies  from  abroad, 
where  it  is  much  cheaper.  You  were  willing  to  sustain  the 
burden  of  war,  in  whatever  shape  it  came,  but  does  not  the 
peace  of  seventeen  years'  standing  call  for  a  relaxation, 
when  at  the  present  rates  of  revenue,  there  will  be  no  public 
debt  in  twenty  years,  and  nothing  on  which  to  base  the 
security  of  the  national  banking  system,  by  which  you  have 
a  sound  paper  currency  ?  What  country  has  a  better  credit 
than  ours,  and  can  it  be  made  better  by  unreasonable  and 
grinding  taxation,  enriching  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the 
many  ? 

See,  too,  the  temptations,  with  the  overflowing  treasury, 
to   corrupt  schemes,  useless  expenditures  and  extravagant 


8  VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

constructions,  if  not  to  fraud  and  stealing  !  And  what  pro- 
tection does  the  farmer  get  ?  You  and  I  know  very  well 
that  so  long  as  we  raise  more  than  can  be  consumed  at  home, 
and  have  to  seek  a  foreign  market  for  our  surplus,  no  farm 
productions  can  be  imported  to  compete  with  us  ;  hence,  even 
with  the  low  rates  of  duty  on  cereals  and  the  like  (not  over 
twenty  per  cent.),  none  can  ever  come  in,  except  from  an 
entire  failure  of  crops  with  us,  and  a  famine  were  threatened. 
And  if  foreign  markets  must  be  had  to  take  our  hundreds  of 
millions  worth  of  produce,  and  if  we  must  t:ike  such  prices 
as  they  can  afford  to  give  us,  ought  we  not  to  have  the  privi- 
lege of  buying,  with  the  proceeds  of  what  we  ship,  the  cheap 
o-oods  which  they  have  to  sell,  rather  than  be  forced  by 
almost,  or  quite,  prohibitory  duties,  to  buy  of  our  protected 
manufacturers  at  nearly  double  prices?  If  we  could  take 
more  of  their  goods  in  return,  and  get  them  home,  with  a 
moderate  revenue  duty,  would  not  foreign  nations  be  able 
to  buy  more  largely  of  us,  and  at  better  prices?  Would 
they  not  be  better  customers  to  us  if  we  did  not  exclude 
their  products,  and  if  they  could  sell  us  more,  not  having 
to  pay  us  in  hard  cash  for  what  they  are  obliged  to  take  from 
us?  In  1881,  they  had  to  pay  us  in  gold  a  balance  of  nine- 
ty-oue  millions  of  dollars,  seriously  disturbing  the  finances 
of  Europe. 

And  now,  to  make  some  specific  points  upon  protection, 
let  us  look  at  the  article  of  salt,  on  which  a  duty  of  about 
eight  cents  a  bushel,  or  forty-six  per  cent,  is  levied,  and  for 
what  ?  To  protect  those  who  own  the  salt-wells  of  Western 
New  York,  Michigan,  and  Virginia.  Do  you  ever  buy  their 
salt?  No!  You  must  use  the  foreign  article,  because  the 
Western  is  too  dear,  and  must  pay  also  heavy  transportation 
charges.  Theirs  is  a  monopoly,  and  they  combine  to  pro- 
duce as  much,  and  only  as  much,  as  they  can  sell  at  protected 
prices,  and  should  they  have  a  surplus,  send  it  to  Canada  and 
take  what  they  can  get  for  it,  rather  than  make  a  concession 
to  us,  or  to  those  who,  at  the  West,  are  obliged  to  have  it  for 
packing  purposes.  It  is  the  principle  on  which  the  Dutch 
used  to  act  in  burning  the  surplus  nutmegs  to  keep  up  prices. 
There  are  other  things  worked  in  the  same  way,  and  notably 
among  them  are  the  copper  products  of  Lake  Superior.     The 


VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF.  9 

mining  companies  sell  all  the  copper  they  can  at  about 
eighteen  cents  a  pound  to  the  consumers  in  the  country,  and 
the  surplus  that  cannot  be  used  here  is  sold  to  go  abroad,  or 
sent  there  to  a  market  where  it  is  worth,  at  the  outside,  15| 
cents  for  the  best.  Last  year  the  exports  of  copper,  out  of 
a  product  of  27,275  tons,  or  fifty-four  and  one-half  millions 
of  pounds,  worth  nearly  ten  millions  of  dollars,  were  3,340,531 
pounds,  at  a  home  value  of  171  cents  a  pound,  amounting  to 
$565,295;  and  the  imports  were  744,566  pounds,  costing 
abroad  12|  cents  a  pound,  and  amounting  in  value  to  $90,945, 
which  paid  a  duty  of  five  cents  a  pound.  This  is  about  the 
loss  that  the  copper  miner  makes  on  his  surplus  after  selling 
you  all  he  can  at  18  cents  a  pound,  and  it  shows  plainly  that 
a  protective  tariff  gives  him  a  monopoly  and  forces  the  peo- 
ple of  this  country  to  pay  several  cents  a  pound  more  for  all 
the  copper  they  use  than  any  other  people  in  the  world. 

Where  is  the  sense  of  it,  except  to  fill  the  pockets  of  a 
few  owners  of  copper  mines?  These  do  not  need  it  as 
protection,  for  they  can  produce  it  as  cheaply  as  it  can  be 
produced  anywhere  else.  One  mine  alone  (the  Calumet 
and  Hecla)  has  paid  to  its  owners,  in  about  twenty  years, 
dividends  to  the  amount  of  over  twenty-one  and  one-half 
millions  dollars,  with  several  millions  surplus  on  hand,  on  an 
original  investment  of  $200,000.  Can  any  such  profits  as 
this  be  shown  in  agriculture?  Suppose,  for  a  moment,  that 
one  of  our  neighbors  should  discover  the  most  valuable  cop- 
per mine  in  the  world  on  his  farm,  should  we  not  think  it 
hard,  if,  in  addition,  Congress  should  pass  a  law  making  the 
rest  of  us  (who  get  no  bounty  for  raising  corn  or  pork)  paj'" 
him  a  bonus  of  five  cents  a  pound  on  his  product?  And 
yet,  this  is  practically  done  for  the  copper  miners.  The  price 
of  five  cents  a  pound  is  added  to  the  fifty  millions  of  pounds 
mined  and  used  in  this  country,  and  we  farmers  pay  our  full 
share  of  it.  And  as  though  this  were  not  enough,  that  they 
should  have  n  fall  monopoly,  an  almost  prohibitory  duty  was 
laid  upon  copper  ore,  and  the  business  of  Smelting  it  not 
only  was  actually  destroyed,  but  also  the  foreign  commerce 
based  upon  it.  Formerly  ships  loaded  with  American  goods 
sailed  from  Boston  to  Chili,  and  in  return  brought  back  cop- 
per ore,  which  was  smelted  at  Point  Shirley,  East  Boston, 


10  VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

with  American  coal  and  by  American  labor.  Now,  the 
whole  is  a  thing  of  the  past,  —  taxed  out  of  existence.  The 
decay  of  American  shipping  is  not  a  matter  of  wonder 
when  such  one-sided  legislation  can  prevail  and  pass  Avithout 
protest  or  complaint. 

But  to  recur  to  the  salt  tax.  Wlien  it  was  first  imposed 
it  was  partly  with  a  view  to  revenue,  as  salt,  a  necessity  of 
life,  has  always  been  a  favorite  subject  for  monopoly  and  im- 
post, and  partly  to  protect  the  salt-makers  on  our  coast. 
These,  before  the  Western  salt  springs  were  worked,  covered 
our  sea-shores  with  thousands  of  acres  of  salt  pans,  making 
salt  by  solar  evaporation.  Now  there  is  not  an  acre  of  them, 
and  what  good  to  us,  or  to  anybody,  is  a  protective  tax  on 
salt? 

We  will  now  look  at  wool  as  a  protected  article,  as  that 
is  one  of  our  farm  products.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a  pound 
of  wool  raised  in  the  United  States,  east  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  that  was  sold  at  twelve  cents  a  pound  or  under, 
or  even  at  sixteen  cents  or  less?  Yet  wool  of  this  character, 
long  and  coarse,  coming  from  Asia,  Africa,  South  America 
and  Mexico,  at  a  cost  of  twelve  cents  or  less  a  pound,  pays 
a  duty  of  three  cents  a  pound,  and  if  only  one  mill  over 
that,  up  to  twenty  cents,  a  duty  of  six  cents  a  pound.  Now 
the  American  wool-grower  needs  no  protection  from  such 
wool  as  this !  Yet  this  class  pays  sometimes,  7,500,000 
dollars  a  year,  into  our  over-flowing  public  treasury.  It  is 
used  for  carpets,  blankets,  flannels  and  other  coarse  goods, 
that  our  laboring  classes  need  to  use,  and  enhances  to  that 
extent  the  cost  of  them.  And  then  what  is  the  result  to 
our  "infant  manufactures?"  They  must  be  protected 
against  the  foreign  goods  made  in  England  and  Germany, 
out  of  this  same  coarse  wool,  rendered  more  costly  to  our 
own  manufacturers  by  the  duty  I  have  named,  and  so  the 
cheap  carpets,  blankets  and  clothing  which  come  from  abroad, 
must  pay  a  still  heavier  proportionate  duty.  The  impost 
on  low-priced  blankets  is  eighty-five  per  cent,  (almost  or 
quite  prohibitory) ,  and  the  American  working-man  must  pay 
one  dollar  and  eighty-five  cents  for  what  the  English  laborer 
pays  but  a  dollar.  The  duties  on  the  finer  qualities  of  wool 
are  much  higher,  and  in  spite  of  them,  large   quantities  are 


VALUE  OF  A  PEOTECTIYE  TARIFF.  11 

imported,  because  we  do  not  raise  enough  to  supply  the  de- 
mand for  our  woollen  mills  which  are  heavily  protected  on 
the  goods  they  make.  You  can  buy  nothing  made  of  wool 
for  your  personal  or  domestic  use,  that  does  not  pay  a  duty 
of  at  least  fifty  per  cent. 

How  can  we  make  money  and  become  millionaires,  or 
how  can  our  farm  hands  alibrd  to  work  for  the  wages  we  can 
afford  to  pay,  when  the  cost  of  everything  is  enhanced  by 
needless  and  cumulative  taxation?  Take  the  fine  wool  that 
is  r^dsed  in  New  England,  if  it  has  ever  been  increased  in 
price  by  the  duty  of  ten  and  twelve  cents  a  pound  imposed 
upon  foreign  wool  of  the  same  class,  adding  that  much  to  the 
cost  of  the  domestic  manufactured  goods,  it  is  but  a  drop  in 
the  bucket,  compared  to  the  amount  of  tax  you  have  to  pay, 
directly  or  indirectly,  on  all  that  you  wear  or  use,  except 
tea  and  coffee,  and  some  few  other  articles,  and  among  them 
eggs  and  feathers,  which  are  duty  free. 

Raw  hides  come  in  duty  free  to  the  amount  of  27,500,000 
dollars  ;  the  cattle  growers  and  slaughterers  do  not  ask  pro- 
tection ;  the  leather  trade  flourishes,  and  we  get  our  shoes, 
harnesses  and  the  like,  by  so  much  the  cheaper.  This  rule 
or  policy  could  be  extended  much  to  our  advantage.  Then 
look  at  steel.  A  duty  of  three  cents  a  pound  is  levied  on 
the  greater  part  of  the  large  quantity  imported.  Some  classes 
pay  more,  but  none  less  than  two  and  a  quarter  cents  a  pound. 
You  well  know  how  much  this  article  enters  into  the  cost  of 
your  implements,  and  of  the  machinery  which  makes  so  many 
of  the  articles  necessary  to  you. 

Again,  let  me  ask,  how  then  has  protection  helped  the 
farmer?  In  answering  this  question,  let  me  call  your  atten- 
tion to  a  point  worthy  of  note  and  of  thought,  made  by  Mr. 
Carlisle  of  Kentucky,  in  a  speech  in  Congress  last  year. 
The  protection  of  the  tariff"  is  given  under  the  specious  and 
attractive  cry  of  protecting  American  labor  against  the  pau- 
per labor  of  Europe,  but  where  does  this  come  in?  I  cannot 
see,  when  we  are  forced  to  send,  as  has  been  done  for  two 
years  past,  an  average  of  650,000,000  dollars'  vvortli  of 
produce  a  year  across  the  ocean,  to  be  sold  in  competition 
with  the  poorest  and  meanest  paid  labor  in  the  world, 
that  of  Russian  peasants,  and  of   the  half-staryed  and  half- 


12  VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

naked  Hindoos  !  While  tlie  manufactnrers,  furnace  men, 
iron  and  machine  makers  and  miners  are  protected  ao:ainst 
the  well-paid  artisans  and  skilled  Uiborers  of  I^ngland, 
France  and  Germany,  whose  wages  have  been  shown  to  be 
as  high  as  those  in  this  country,  the  agriculturist  has  to 
compete  with  the  lowest  grade  of  labor  on  earth,  and  with- 
out the  privilege  of  reciprocity.  If  it  be  said  that  you  have 
a  better  home  market  for  what  you  raise  ;  on  the  other  hand 
it  must  be  admitted,  that  a  very  large  amount  of  your  sur- 
plus productions,  amounting  to  552,000,000  dollars  last 
year,  and  in  1881  to  730,000,000,  would  have  been  lost  en- 
tirely but  for  the  foreign  market. 

You  do  not  dispose  of  all  you  can  at  high  prices,  as  do 
the  salt-makers  and  copper-miners,  and  sell  the  surplus  only 
at  a  sacrifice.  It  is  one  price  for  all.  Is  it  not  due,  then, 
to  this  iinmense  interest  that  some  attention  should  be  given 
to  build  up  and  improve  this  foreign  market,  rather  than  to 
spend  all  legislative  efibrt  in  raising  higher  barriers  to  keep 
our  produce  at  home? 

The  protective  system  has  not  worked  so  well  that  you 
find  a  home  market  for  all  that  is  raised,  and  the  market 
you  have  to  seek  abroad  is  not  replaced  or  made  needless  by 
the  one  it  is  attempted  to  build  up  at  home.  The  last  cen- 
sus shows  that  there  were  employed  in  the  manufacturing 
establishments  of  the  United  States  2,738,895  men,  women 
and  children,  or  a  little  over  five  per  cent,  of  the  whole  popu- 
lation, and  the  profits  earned  upon  the  products  of  their 
labor  by  the  manufacturers,  in  the  year  1880,  were  $1,024,- 
801,847,  or  over  one  thousand  millions  of  dollars.  If  these 
are  "  infant  manufactures,"  the  profits  are  surely  not  infan- 
tile. 

It  is  well,  then,  to  look  at  these  things  squarely  and  fairly, 
and  ask  how  much  good  does  the  farmer  derive  from  the 
tremendous  import  tax  of  216,000,000  dollars  paid  last 
yeiir?  For  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  if  by  this  tax  the 
price  of  foreign  goods  imported  is  raised  from  thirty  to  fifty 
per  cent.,  the^domestic  article  is  not  sold  any  cheaper  for  the 
same  quality.  As  a  rule  the  selling  price  of  home  manu- 
factures is  fixed  at  little,  if  any,  below  that  at  which  the  im- 
porter offers  to  sell  you  his  duty-paid  goods.     I  could  go 


VALUE  OF  A  PEOTECTIVE  TARIFF.  13 

on  almost  endlessly  to  illustrate  the  hardships  of  a  system 
that,  in  many  cases,  is  like  the  tax  on  mortgages,  a  double 
exaction,  but  this  is  not  the  time  nor  the  place  to  exhaust 
the  subject. 

What  I  have  said  may  open  a  fresh  line  of  thought  to 
you,  and  raise  many  important  questions  in  your  minds. 
Perhaps  none  will  be  more  pertinent  than  to  ask,  such  being 
the  state  of  things,  what  have  our  senators  and  representa- 
tives in  Conofress  been  about,  that  these  abuses  have  now 
gone  on  these  many  years,  without  protest  or  remonstrance 
on  their  part,  nay,  even  with  apologies  and  defence? 
They  may  think  only  of  the  wealthy  iron  companies,  the 
machine  makers,  the  cotton  and  woollen  manufacturers,  of 
those  who  have  their  capital  in  mines,  in  banks,  and  in  land- 
grant  railroads,  but  not  of  you.  Perhaps  they  do  not  know 
enough  ;  perhaps  they  owe  their  election  to  the  men  who 
rally  their  work-people  to  the  polls  on  the  cry  that  the 
protection  to  their  business  is  in  danger,  and  that  the  wages 
of  their  operatives  are  threatened,  and  that  the  mills  must 
close.  They  say  nothing  about  the  fear  for  their  own  large 
dividends  and  immense  profits,  but  strive  to  leave  all  the 
burdens  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  agriculturist. 

Much,  very  much  more,  could  be  said;  much  about  the 
dwarfing  of  our  commerce  and  the  decline  of  shipping ;  for 
none  can  say,  when  eighty-four  and  a  half  per  cent,  or  nearly 
seventeeu-twentieths  of  our  foreign  commerce  is  done  under 
foreign  flags,  and  when  the  stars  and  stripes  have  almost  dis- 
appeared from  the  ocean,  that  protection  and  navigation  laws 
have  promoted  our  growth  and  prosperity  in  this  direction. 
It  is,  however,  enough  in  itself  to  awaken  our  serious  reflec- 
tion to  repeat,  that  the  exports  of  agricultural  products  from 
the  United  States  were  last  year  552,000,000  dollars,  forming 
seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  whole ;  that  the  returns  of  these 
exports  in  foreign  goods  paid  a  taxof  216,000,000  dollars,  and 
that  the  surplus  revenue  from  all  sources,  applied  to  the 
premature  payment  of  the  public  debt,  over  and  above  all 
the  extravagance  of  expenditure  at  Washington,  was  145,- 
000,000  dollars. 

W^hy  should  this  tremendous  sum  be  exacted  annually 
from  the  hard-working  people  of  this  country?     Who  grow 


14  VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

rich  by  it  ?  Look  around  you  and  you  will  see  that  it  is  not 
the  farmer.  You  may  not  feel  any  particular  pinch,  it 
operates  so  insidiously,  this  indirect  mode  of  taxation,  but 
do  you  grow  rich?  Do  you  even  make  a  good  living  out  of 
it?  Those  who  gather  the  spoils  will  appear  if  you  look  at 
the  large  dividends  of  the  various  classes  of  manufacturers  and 
machinists,  and  implement  makers,  and  miners,  and  while 
only  5|  per  cent  of  our  population  is  engaged  in  these  pur- 
suits, look  at  their  profits,  look  at  their  accumulations  in  the 
way  of  "  plant "  or  investment,  constantly  adding  mill  to  mill, 
shop  to  shop,  furnace  to  furnace,  rolling-mill  to  rolling-mill, 
out  of  their  profits,  besides  the  regular  dividends.  Look  at 
the  large  establishments  built  in  this  State  by  the  accumula- 
tions acquired  by  protection,  which  gives  to  certain  classes  a 
practical  monopoly  and  large  assured  profits.  Look  at  the 
large  mills  and  factories  all  over  this  great  Commonwealth, 
see  how  they  grow  —  while  farms  dwindle  and  diminish  in 
value.  In  a  late  debate  in  the  United  States  Senate,  a  state- 
ment was  read  from  the  "Hartford  Courant,"of  the  dividends 
and  the  prices  of  the  stock  of  some  of  the  manufacturing 
companies  in  Connecticut,  and  among  them,  the  Southington 
Cutlery  Company,  whose  cash  dividends,  the  last  year,  were 
twenty  and  a  half  per  cent.  Mr.  Piatt  explained  that  these 
dividends  were  declared  on  their  nominal  capital,  but  their  real 
capital  was,  in  many  instances,  several  times  as  much.  An 
unfortunate  explanation  or  admission,  for  whence  came  this 
"  real  capital,"  but  from  accumulated  profits  put  into  the  busi- 
ness (and  into  increased  buildings  and  machinery  piled  up) ,  in 
addition  to  large  semi-annual  dividends  ?  And  so  it  is  in  old 
Massachusetts  !  No  wonder  that  our  young  people  leave  the 
farm  for  the  lighter  work  and  greater  emoluments  of  pro- 
tected industry  !  After  all  I  have  stated,  I  would  not  be 
understood  as  advising,  even  if  the«people  were  agreed  upon 
it,  any  sudden,  radical  change.  It  should  be  gradual,  but  it 
should  be  begun,  I  would  not  hastily  impinge  upon  what 
may  almost  be  considered  vested  rights.  However  good 
the  principle  of  free  trade  may  be,  "  buying  where  we  can 
buy  cheapest,  and  selling  whore  we  can  sell  dearest,"  we 
have  been  so  long  building  up  another  system,  that  to  stop 
it  suddenly  would  be  ruinous  to  all ;  but  now  we  are  so 


VALUE   OF  A  PROTECTIVE   TARIFF.         15 

large  and  independent  a  nation,  ought  we  not  to  rise  above 
a  one-sided  system,  and  gradually,  at  least,  amend  it? 
Ought  we  not  to  ask  that  some  of  the  hardships  and  inequal- 
ities and  much  double  taxing,  the  protection  so  called  which 
does  not  protect,  should  be  looked  into  and  dealt  with  wisely 
and  in  a  statesmanlike  manner  and  corrected? 

Is  not  the  present  tariff  too  much  adapted  to  hold  up  (not 
to  build  up,  for  they  are  nlready  built)  certain  classes  at  the 
expense  of  the  farmer?  Must  there  not  be  something  wrong 
when  everybody  else  gets  rich,  while  this,  numerically  the 
largest  class,  grows  poorer?  Why  must  a  revenue  of  four 
hundred  millions  of  dollars  be  collected,  when  only  eighty, 
or  at  most  one  hundred  millions,  are  required  to  maintain  our 
national  credit,  pay  our  interest,  and  extinguish  gradually 
the  public  debt,  and  as  much  more  for  the  economical 
administration  of  the  government?  Why  should  not  the 
farmers  demand,  and  the  demand  be  yielded  to,  that 
economy  and  simplicity  shall  be  the  rule  of  the  government, 
as  it  is  in  their  own  households,  and  a  lio;hter  weio-ht  of 
duties  and  taxes  be  imposed  upon  them? 

Suppcose  our  iron  and  machine  makers,  miners,  manufac- 
turers and  railroad  men  should  grow  rich  less  rapidly  than  for 
the  last  twenty  years,  would  it  be  any  evil?  W^ould  not  a 
return  to  simple,  republican,  purer  and  calmer  ways,  with 
less  feverish  excitement,  less  of  luxury  and  show,  be  a  pub- 
lic and  national  advantage  ? 

I  may  be  told  that  Congress  is  now  at  work  in  this  direction. 
I  hope  it  may  be  so,  but  there  are  those  who  know  better 
than  I,  who  say  it  is  a  sham  and  a  delusion  ;  that  they  are 
not  honest  and  sincere,  or  in  earnest ;  that  they  are  only  do- 
ing as  those  "  that  keep  the  word  of  promise  to  our  ear,  and 
break  it  to  our  hope."  If  so,  they  are  playing  a  very  dan- 
gerous game. 

It  is  commonly  said,  and  with  much  truth,  that  we  inherit 
our  opinions  on  religion,  politics  and  finance.  I  confess  that 
I  inherited,  or  imbibed  early,  a  conviction  that  protection 
was  needful  to  our  progress  and  prosperity  as  a  nation. 
Experience  and  observation  have  satisfied  me  that  it  was.  a 
mistake,  or  if  it  was  correct,  that  we  have  got  beyond  the 
period  when  it  was  needed,  .   With  our  vast  heritao;e  of  free 


16  VALUE  OF  A  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

lands  and  a  virgin  soil,  I  feel  that  it  had  been  better  for  us 
to  have  trusted  to  our  own  unaided  efforts  and  our  natural 
progress,  rather  than  to  have  fostered  special  industries,  and 
to  have  built  up  privileged  classes,  an  aristocracy  of  wealth, 
as  objectionable  as  an  aristocracy  of  land. 

The  facts  satisfy  me  that  I  was  mistaken,  and  that  the 
freest  commerce  possible  with  the  nations  of  the  world, 
would  have  given  us,  in  the  long  run,  the  largest  benefits  as 
a  people.  We  do  not  ask  for  a  tariff  or  Chinese  wall  of 
prohibition  between  the  other  thirty-seven  States  of  the 
Union  and  ourselves,  and  the  principle  of  free  commercial 
intercourse  which  we  have  with  them  would  have  applied 
equally,  and  would  have  worked  as  well  with  foreign  coun- 
tries. We  should  be  laughed  at  if  we  were  to  ask  Congress 
to  protect  us  against  Western  grain,  pork,  butter,  apples, 
and  the  like,  but  we  know  well  that  they  are  brought  to  the 
doors  of  our  manufacturing  neighbors,  and  that  they  will 
pay  no  more  for  our  products  than  for  them.  We  even 
know  that  Western  produce  goes  to  depress  the  value  of 
what  we  raise. 

In  spite  of  this,  however,  let  our  aim  be  to  extend  our 
markets,  while  we  lighten  the  burdens  of  taxation,  and 
thus  cheapen  the  cost  of  our  living,  and  of  production. 
Let  us  approach  the  subject,  not  in  the  spirit  of  partisan- 
ship or  sectionalism,  but  as  patriots,  and  intelligent,  thinking 
men. 

Let  us  try  to  cast  aside  prejudice  and  inherited  notions 
and  look  at  the  things  around  us  by  the  light  of  facts,  and 
broaden  our  views,  and  endeavor  to  bring  it  about  that  there 
shall  be  no  favored  classes,  but  that  we  shall  all  stand  on 
the  broad  platform  of  equal  rights,  equal  burdens,  equal 
privileges. 


.^^' 


pp. 


^¥;>lH' 


'O'-'  \  .  'b^W'^\M^,y M-it:-,^'^y/ 


